Posts by Old Goat

61

WHAT REASON DOES THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE TO DENY JESUS MEDIATOR-SHIP FOR EVERYONE?

by ÁrbolesdeArabia in

aguest, jehovah-jirah, lars58, rick fearon, finkle, or another scholars on jwn.

what reason does the governing body have for telling.

seven million jehovah's witnesses, "jesus is not your man dude!

Old Goat

In Watchtower theology Jesus is mediator of the New Covenant. That much is scriptural. They limit the new covenant participants to God and the 144,000. A covenant is a contractual agreement. The new covenant is described in Jeremiah. The new covenant organizes spiritual Israel as a nation. A mediator is different from a propitiator. In Watchtower theology Jesus is the propitiator (peace maker, reconciler) for all. He is the mediator between God and the Bride of Christ in the New Covenant relationship.

If one believes that only 144K are part of that covenant, then one must believe that Jesus' mediatorship concerns only them and God, the parties to the covenant. There is a distinct difference between a covenant instituting sacrifice and a propitiating (sin atoning) sacrifice. In Christian theology, Jesus' one sacrifice filled both functions. There is Old Testament precedence for that.

The Watchtower does not teach that Christ's sacrifice does not cover all. While their teaching on mediatorship may be flawed, it is consistently misrepresented. They do not teach that all Christians are not covered by Christ's atoning sacrifice. Witness soteriology is unnecessarily convoluted.

Personally, I’m inclined to see the number 144,000 as symbolic, though I admit there is some merit in the Watchtower argument that it is a literal number. The issue rests with God, and, unlike the Watchtower that brooks no contrary view, I’m willing to let it rest with him. I see all the issues as to the timing of ultimate salvation as a replay of 19th Century discussions that went no where then and are meaningless now.

The problem isn’t that they see Jesus' mediatorship as confined to a small number. They see his propitiating sacrifice as applying to all, and that is sound Christian doctrine. The problem rests in their tendency to make basic doctrine as hard to understand as is possible. And they express what are no more than personal beliefs as if they were the inspired word of God.

52

Was it EX JW literature / WT's or the BIBLE which woke you up? Post scriptures if any....

by EndofMysteries in

i considered myself immune to ex jw stuff.

no amount of old watchtowers or anything would change me.

it was seeing treatment of others by elders and the bible itself, which woke me.

Old Goat

Apostate material is usually silly ... and wrong. The governing body puts itself in Jesus' place. Elders are untrained, speaking their own opinions in place of God's word. The love that is supposed to exist between brothers is hard to find among elders. Circuit and District Overseers are often self-serving and full of pride. IF Witnesses represent God's truth even on a small scale, the organization is corrupt. Eli is sitting in the temple of God, and his sons are abusing the congregation.

I liked being a Witness in the late 1940s and through the 1970s, even through the 1975 crap. I started disliking some practices about 1970. Among these was a Watchtower Society grab at congregation money about 1980. Now that's a story and a half. I'd love to tell it, but I was so involved that my story would identify me. I stayed on as an elder through issues that would curle your hair (assuming it's straight). One of these involved a child molestation case where the District Overseer told us not to procede against the mother who facilitated the abuse. I finally threw up my hands and resigned as an elder citing health reasons and age.

My family are all witnesses. I keep my issues to myself.

30

Are you a writer?

by Hortensia in

i think that at least a few of you are writers, maybe more.

i mean honest-to-god working-for-money writers, writers with a small "w" rather than a capital "w." my experience is that writing is a lot like theater: a few stars at the top making the bucks, a middle level with lots of people who work hard and don't make much, and then a lot more hopeful people at the bottom who are trying to make a living writing with no luck so far.. tell me about it.

what kind of writing do you do?

Old Goat

Young Adult books, articles for professional journals, feature articles for newspapers.

10

Russell, Barbour and ... Albert Barnes - 606, 607, 588, 587 before 1914

by kepler in

jw
friends

in the midst of several reading or contributing to several on-going and resurrected topics about calculating one historical event based on a rube-goldberg based prophesying formula, i had mentioned a couple of historical leads i thought had some bearing on how this whole process had got under way.

explaining where such ideas come from could be just as fruitless as following the ideas to the follies to which they lead.

but nonetheless, perhaps by sharing some more elements of 19th century americana, there might be some insight after all.. theologian albert barnes (17981870) graduated from hamilton college, clinton, new york, in 1820, and from princeton theological seminary in 1823. barnes was ordained as a presbyterian minister by the presbytery of elizabethtown, new jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor of the presbyterian church in morristown, new jersey (18251830), and of the first presbyterian church of philadelphia (18301867).. .

Old Goat

Russell and Barbour did not point to 607 BC; they pointed to 606. The 606 date was derived from Elliott's Horae, a standard work on prophecy. The chronology they used was develped by Christopher Bowern, an Anglican clergyman, and published in the fourth edition of Elliott's book. The 2520 year concept traces to an American clergyman who published in the late 1700s and from him to John Aquila Brown, a silver and gold smith turned prophetic student. After Brown published in 1823 the 2520 year concept became general. Others before Barnes pointed to 607. The Watch Tower was late to recognize the date.

If you really want to know all the details, you need to read Schulz and de Vienne: Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. The book is available from lulu.com. It is available as an ebook from Barnes and Noble. It's very detailed and has many, many reliable footnotes. It's refereshing to see real historical research such as this is, instead of crap. Buy that book. Read it.

45

The great crowd has no mediator. Jesus is only the mediator for the 144K

by blond-moment in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft-ey9qodgw.

Old Goat

Mind you wrote: still the New Covenant is only offered to 144000 or GB.........until proven faithful at death.....and does not apply until then if one wants to look at it as it only applies to them.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. The Governing Body is not the same as the Bride of Christ (144,000 in Witness doctrine). The New Covenant is with all of Spiritual Israel. Not even Witnesses think it's just with the Governing Body. (At least not yet. ...)

Every church has an eccesiastical structure that they pretend to find in the Bible. Witnesses are no different. I'm at a loss as to know how to reply to what you wrote; i simply do not understand what you're saying. Clarify.

All of my children are Witnesses. Two of them are Pioneers. One was for a period in foreign service. I may wish they saw the Watchtower organization more clearly. They're grown, mature individuals. I cannot make decisions for them. I still hear comments about how well I raided my children. I shrug them off. I had little control over what they became. The most I ever did was try to teach them to reason.

45

The great crowd has no mediator. Jesus is only the mediator for the 144K

by blond-moment in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft-ey9qodgw.

Old Goat

If you think that church doctrines in general haven't changed, you should read a good history of Christianity. Until the last 3/4 century, churches were always in a doctrinal turmoil. It's part of life.

When you say you're "going with the Bible" you're really saying you're led by your understanding of the Bible. Witness leaders are too. Do you expect to have a flawless interpretation of the Bible on first reading? Probably not. Why do you expect it of Witnesses? For me, the issue centers on a Spiritual Dictatorship among Witnesses that the New Testament does not invision. They've invested deeply in an authority structure that is not biblical.

What in the Bible suggests that we should expect "those taking the lead among" us to be inspired, flawless interpreters? Nothing. The problem is that they claim an "authority" that the New Testament does not give them. Much of what is said here relates to authority structure among Witnesses. Some of us have real doctrinal issues. Many of those here have issues with Watchtower claims of divine authority. And that, I think, is the larger issue for many.

45

The great crowd has no mediator. Jesus is only the mediator for the 144K

by blond-moment in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft-ey9qodgw.

Old Goat

dear mind,

I'm in the uncomfortable position of explaining a doctrine many aspects of which I question. Mediation of a covenant, agreement to the terms of the New Covenant, does not make anyone perfect. Read the actual verses in Jeremiah. A covenant is merely an agreement between parties. You're really asking a question about the meaning of Paul's phrase, "declared righteous." If you want to see what the Watchtower teaches, look in the Insight book.

Jeremiah's prophecy about the New Covenant is about puting Israel on a new footing, creating a new relationship to God. New Testament theology redefines who the Israel of God is. The Body of Christ is the Israel of God. Witnesses believe that number is limited. The entire issue hangs on identifying who Jesus meant by "other sheep." Many commentators point to the Gentiles. This view has flaws. Not all of Israel were God's sheep. Jesus said as much. So if he meant the gentiles, he did not mean all gentiles.

I'm caught between to inclinations. I think some who come here never grasped witness doctrine in the first place, except in the most basic way. Do I send you back to Watchtower books that contain things I don't believe so you can look again? Or do i say, "what does it matter if you've decided that the life of a witness is not for you?" If one becomes a controversialist, then one should know the subject well. If you've only decided that you do not like being a Witnesses and want to follow a different path then let it go.

45

The great crowd has no mediator. Jesus is only the mediator for the 144K

by blond-moment in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft-ey9qodgw.

Old Goat

Dear Sabastious,

You made one excellent point. Watchtower doctrine is a hodge podge of things taught over the last century and a half. They're afraid of clearly stating that they've dropped some views. Notice that in the recent books on the prophecies that they dropped pages and pages of previous explanations? But they never say, "all that was crap. We know it. You know it." If they're to remain a vital religion they need a sort of Statement of Theology Secundum.

They won't do that, of course. They aren't brave enough to put issues that openly. They are reactionary.

We're witnessing a theological shift among Watchtower writers. There seems to be at least two parties. It would serve them well if they wrote their own verse by verse or chapter by chapter commentary on the bible. They would have to rethink a lot of things if they were to do a good, solid job. I doubt they'd ever do it. Fear and a very narrow view will keep them from it, that and the certainty that the end is weeks, months at most from accomplishment.

I was around for the wild 1954 speculation. Bet you never heard of that one. You're all whippersnappers! The end is always near. I consider myself a Christian, and I believe we are in the last days. I also believe it is fruitless to put too much credit in my own personal beliefs and God will do what he wants and when he wants to do it. The Watchtower has always tried to force God's hand. Today a significant number who hold some sort of authority believe the Governing Body is nearly God. For them the GB is a collective pope. If I believed something like that, I'd become a Catholic and get all the interesting and colorful things that the Mass produces.

The fact remains, on this issue the Watchtower is misrepresented on boards like this. That sort of thing turned me off for years. Back in the early 50s an ex-witness wrote an anti-watchtower book. It didn't see wide circulation and I've forgotten the title. It was reprinted in the 1970s with updates. He quoted from a more recent publication, ending a sentence in the middle with a period. It changed the whole character of the quotation. I do not find that helpful or honest. There's always someone with a mind out there who will check on what we say. I did that for decades. "Famous Apostates" from the 1950s sent out drivel in the form of little magazines, pamphlets and books. None of it was persuasive to me because it was full of stupidity, misrepresentation, or a bitter spirit that covered over any valid arguments. Schnell, Goodrich, and Reid (from Canada) were a nasty bunch who did more harm than good. We do not need to repeat their mistakes.

Watchtower doctrine - more accurately, Watchtower focus - has shifted in the last few years. Until they clean house, the spiritual paradise, a hyper-allegorical approach (essentially medieval in nature) and years of pseudo-scholarship sit in the background like a pile of stinking garbage.

45

The great crowd has no mediator. Jesus is only the mediator for the 144K

by blond-moment in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft-ey9qodgw.

Old Goat

I know Ray Franz is hero to many here. I knew him and his uncle. Fred was nuts, Ray I never liked. Both could present themselves in a pleasing way. Fred knew my mother and other relatives. My first memory of him is from when I was a little boy. His version of interacting with children was to poke at them and make stupid noises. Neither man was without flaws. Ray picked what he saw as a "hot button" issue and ran with it. He knew as well as I what the Watchtower teaches on the New Covenant and why.

The fact remains, within Watchtower teaching, and within the plain meaning of Mesites, the Greek word, a mediator mediates. The New Testament presents Christ as Mediator of the New Covenant. He is covenant mediator in the same sense Moses was, though of a New Covenant and not of a restatement of the old covenant. If there is a sin covering element, then it is between the parties to the covenant. Witnesses see the New Covenant as limited to 144,000. I doubt this. But within their narrow view, Jesus is mediator between that small number of humans and God. It is an organizational covenant such as the law covenant was. The salvation of all men is dependent not on the New Covenant, but on Christ's ransom. Christ's ransom, according to the Witness view, is a sacrifice for sins. He is both sacrafice and high priest. For Witnesses this is a different function than mediator. They fall within what 19th Century German Evangelical writers taught on this issue. I suspect who ever first formulated this read Lang's Commentary in English translation, and elaborated Witness doctrine from a few scattered comments found therein.

Christ as "propitiator" and High Priest applies it to all. How long were you a Witness so that you do not know this?

45

The great crowd has no mediator. Jesus is only the mediator for the 144K

by blond-moment in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft-ey9qodgw.

Old Goat

The misrepresentation lies in the assumption that without a mediator, the great crowd are without the covering of christ's ransom. Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach that. You confuse their teachings on mediator and propitiator. Damn it. I'm not supporting their teaching. I'm saying that their teaching is misrepresented.

The quotations you give us do not prove that they teach that the "great crowd" is without ransom benefits. All they prove is that Witnesses believe that there is no salvation outside the New Covenant arrangement.

You've made this mistake of assuming that because the quotations use the terms that concern you that they say what you seem to think. In fact they say the opposite. The articles you cite teach what I said they teach. Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant between God and Spiritual Israel. In Biblical terms a "mediator" is a contract negotiator. The contract in this case is the New Covenant. A "propitiator" is a peace maker, a reconciler. In terms of raw lexicographical definition, they get that right.

They reason that Spiritual Israel is a limited number, 144,000. This is probably wrong, but that's how they reason. What ever the number of Spiritual Israel, only they are in a relationship with Christ as "mediator." You confuse mediator with the concept of Christ as High Priest. Even witnesses recognize that he is high priest for all. As high priest he is "propitiator." As John says, that's for "not just our sins, but for those of the whole world."

I'm not telling you to accept Witness teaching. Some of this is questionable. But it IS what they teach. They do NOT teach that the great crowd, the rest of humanity, or anyone approaching God is without ransom covering.